No, it's really, really not. The West doesn't give a shit about Eastern Christians. They looked at the Syriac getting genocided by Daesh with indifference, cared more about the Yezidi than the Christians of Iraq and Syria. Heck, they care more about Uighur and Rohingya.Armenia is supported by whole of Christian world.
More than religion (because as far as Muslims go, the Azeri are among the most secular you can find), it's an ethnic and cultural conflict. Armenians in the Karabakh were forbidden from speaking Armenian, from listening to Armenian radio and TV broadcast, from learning the history of their people, etc. That's why they rebelled.That will be like axing own leg. Remember Armenia doesn't have claim on the disputed land except that it supports majority people (Christian people) against an oppressive regime of Muslim majority Ajarbaijan state. If I am correct, then land belongs to Ajarbaijan however as native people are Christian majority while Ajarbaijan is Muslim majority country, hence native people support separation from Ajarbaijan on religious ground. It's complex for Indian foreign ministry, hence silence and indirectly supporting status quo.
And just like Israel supports Azerbaijan because Iran supports Armenia; Georgia supports Azerbaijan because Russia supports Armenia. Armenia depends on Russian protection against the Turks' unquenchable thirst for genocide; Georgia lost control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia because of Russia, so Georgia hates Russia but cannot fight back directly. They can however take revenge in making things harder for Russia's protégé Armenia, so they do it. For example, they closed their borders to prevent Armenians living in Russia from going to Armenia to help. Instead of going to Armenia by land through Georgia, they have to go by air or by the Caspian sea and Iran.It seems to be Azerbaijan attacking Armenia, so most will side with Armenia. Neighbouring Georgia is also nearly 90% Christian. Turkey isn't exactly on great terms with the US or the EU at the moment either, or NATO despite being a member. In fact their presence in NATO is rough analogous to the presence of a shoe-wearing sausage in a mosque right now.
Erdogan's policy for TURKEY STRONK! is based on two competing ideas: the first is Islamism, seeing Turkey as the lead nation of Islam, reprising the role of the Ottoman Empire and thereby claiming all the former subjects of this empire to its sphere of influence, reaching as far as Morocco to the west, the Balkans to the north, the whole Arab peninsula to the south. The second is panturkism, extending Turkey's reach towards Central Asia by grabbing Turkic nations such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.Interesting video. Turks have drunk the kool aid of a neo-ottoman empire...
I had made few relevant points if you will refer to posts 43, 44, 52, 58, 65, 71 & 80. However you have added few informative points which must be looked into.No, it's really, really not. The West doesn't give a shit about Eastern Christians. They looked at the Syriac getting genocided by Daesh with indifference, cared more about the Yezidi than the Christians of Iraq and Syria. Heck, they care more about Uighur and Rohingya.
More than religion (because as far as Muslims go, the Azeri are among the most secular you can find), it's an ethnic and cultural conflict. Armenians in the Karabakh were forbidden from speaking Armenian, from listening to Armenian radio and TV broadcast, from learning the history of their people, etc. That's why they rebelled.
The Azeri are secular as far as religion goes, but they are very nationalist as far as ethnicity goes. So they don't get along with Iran (their next-door neighbor, which is also a Shia Muslim country but more militant about it, what with being a revolutionary islamic republic, something the Azeri don't care about) because Iran's northern areas are majority Azeri, and Azerbaijan is claiming these lands. This resulted in the weird situation that Iran ended up supporting Armenia against Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan is hostile to Iran. As a result, Israel supports Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan is hostile to Iran.
And just like Israel supports Azerbaijan because Iran supports Armenia; Georgia supports Azerbaijan because Russia supports Armenia. Armenia depends on Russian protection against the Turks' unquenchable thirst for genocide; Georgia lost control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia because of Russia, so Georgia hates Russia but cannot fight back directly. They can however take revenge in making things harder for Russia's protégé Armenia, so they do it. For example, they closed their borders to prevent Armenians living in Russia from going to Armenia to help. Instead of going to Armenia by land through Georgia, they have to go by air or by the Caspian sea and Iran.
As for NATO, it knows it cannot extend to Armenia because Armenia relies too much on Russia and Iran to join an anti-Russia club led by an anti-Iran country, but it was very interested in adding Azerbaijan to its string of pearl. Get a new possible attack vector against Russia or Iran.
Foreign relations of NATO - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.orgAccording to a NATO diplomatic source in August 2009 some key officials at NATO headquarters in Brussels were pushing hard for engaging Azerbaijan on the membership question. "Turkey, Romania, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and the Baltic states" are among the members backing a fast track for Azerbaijan's NATO membership. While President Ilham Aliyev has generally supported non-belligerency (though not neutrality due to the unresolved conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh) since his rise to power in 2003, Azerbaijan has hosted NATO military exercises and high-profile meetings in 2009.[5] The unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh would present a major roadblock to membership.Of course countries can only join NATO when they don't have ongoing conflicts. This is to ensure that a country joining doesn't turn into an instant war. (This is also what incentivized Russia to keep so many frozen conflicts around. Moldavia/Transniestria, Georgia/Abkhazia+South Ossetia, Ukraine/Donbass+Crimea, and Azerbaijan/Nagorno-Karabakh. A simple way to make a country ineligible for NATO membership.)
So no, do not expect people to side with Armenia. The public opinion can see it as a case where a Muslim country attacks a Christian one and is very obviously preparing a genocide, but Western politicians see a NATO country's puppet preparing to attack a country aligned with Russia and Iran and reclaiming a territory that officially belongs to it since Stalin gave it to them, which would allow that puppet country to then join NATO itself.
Erdogan's policy for TURKEY STRONK! is based on two competing ideas: the first is Islamism, seeing Turkey as the lead nation of Islam, reprising the role of the Ottoman Empire and thereby claiming all the former subjects of this empire to its sphere of influence, reaching as far as Morocco to the west, the Balkans to the north, the whole Arab peninsula to the south. The second is panturkism, extending Turkey's reach towards Central Asia by grabbing Turkic nations such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
The problems with that dream is that, 1. by and large, the former Ottoman subjects do not want to be Ottoman subjects again, they do not have nostalgia of being colonial subjects of the Turks, 2. the Central Asian countries, despite their shared ethnicity with Turkey, usually have more cultural and economic ties with closer neighbors such as Russia than with Turkey (after all, they were Soviet republics while Turkey was and still is in NATO, so they spent 70 years without any connection), and 3. Islamism has a strong component of Arab supremacism which is incompatible with Turkic supremacism, so it'll be hard to reconcile Islamism and Panturkism.
NATO is an instrument of US influence and therefore serves mostly to promote the interests of US imperialism. Many people, especially in Eastern Europe, see it as a defense against Russian imperialism, and that is true too, but it's just because they prefer to be under the imperial dominion of the distant United States than of the neighboring Russian federation.Aside, I have one genuine query (it might look like critical of US, Europe & NATO system and it might be true as well) that why NATO alliance generally ends up backing those who are genocidal in principle & actual action on ground, even if their intentions might be good. One time it can be ignored but repeatedly, I don't get it. I do consider western democracy & systems as better way of doing things, however I find no logical reason as to why NATO political leadership makes same mistake again & again. Political differences is fine and it can be countered but having genocide of so many people done on its watch is just what disturbs me. Your opinion?
Realistically, if no outside powers intervene in a meaningful way, Armenia is destined to lose this conflict right?
Followup, is Armenia proper truly next on the chopping block? I definitely get the sense that the Turks and Azeris want a connected border, historical statements (and genocides) by prominent Turks and Azeris show their intent. If the world doesn't do anything about this war, what's stopping an invasion and subsequent cleansing of Armenians? Maybe not walk into the desert and starve genocide, but perhaps harsh repression, encouraged Armenian emigration and flooding the lands with Turkic peoples?
Russia. Armenia is a member of CSTO, in principle attack on Armanian proper is an attack on Russia. But only time will tell whether Russia will do anything about it. I assume Russia will. Considering the fact that Russia got involved in far away Syria, they have more reason to involve in its own backyard for an ex-soviet treaty partner.
Collective Security Treaty Organization - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I know about CSTO... but Russia (like all great powers) does whatever it wants, whenever it wants. After a certain point, obligations and promises become optional it seems.
I think Russia's intervention in Syria is not a good comparison. Russia intervened to fight ISIS, an international terror group. Armenia is fighting Turkey and Azerbaijan, two actual nations with significant capabilities. The potential for major losses is immense for Russia... granted if they don't intervene and Armenia collapses, it will only embolden Turkey further and will be a nuisance for Russia down the road.
But it hasn't captured any land. I don't think that Azerbaijan even planned for this invasion. The way they have lost men seems that they were manipulated by the Turks to invade and take nagorno karabakh. Without the drones the performance of the Azeris have been lacking whether it is to infantry or armoured. The armenians have been able to hold them without much out side help.Azerbaijan already accomplished much of its objective: